That vehicle was on an episode of Fully Charged in October. It's a fairly slow vehicle with a "theoretical" max speed of 40 km/h (25 mph), and they said the in-service speed was more typically in the 10-20 km/h (6-12 mph) range. Okay for a very dense place, but I suspect this particular vehicle wouldn't cut it in the suburbs. I'm sure this is classified as a low-speed vehicle, so it is probably illegal for it to go on any roadways where the speed limit exceeds 35 mph.

There was a big push back around 1999 or so to put buses in the trench, but the MGC rallied to kill that idea.

Would that resolution from 1999 prevent operations of these small buses too? I think that running them would take away the usage from Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Midtown Rail should be a priority once SWLRT is built!

Where are they thinking it would run? Blocking the bike/walking path? I doubt it would handle the terrain challenges if it wasn't on the existing path. If it isn't blocking the path, the other half of the greenway is separated by a fence and "not accessible".

Also, a lot of that article talks about getting people that aren't near existing transit spines. That is essentially a short distance automated taxi service provided with public dollars. That sounds like a tremendous waste to me.

Where are they thinking it would run? Blocking the bike/walking path? I doubt it would handle the terrain challenges if it wasn't on the existing path. If it isn't blocking the path, the other half of the greenway is separated by a fence and "not accessible".

Also, a lot of that article talks about getting people that aren't near existing transit spines. That is essentially a short distance automated taxi service provided with public dollars. That sounds like a tremendous waste to me.

I won't be surprised if AV pushers try to argue that they should run in bike lanes (etc) because of their purported safety. The AV lobby generally shows a very poor awareness of geographic factors.

BoredAgain wrote:Also, a lot of that article talks about getting people that aren't near existing transit spines. That is essentially a short distance automated taxi service provided with public dollars. That sounds like a tremendous waste to me.

Yeah, it’s proposed as a last-mile solution, and then in the next breath they talk about it as a solution for a transit line. Makes no sense.

BoredAgain wrote:Also, a lot of that article talks about getting people that aren't near existing transit spines. That is essentially a short distance automated taxi service provided with public dollars. That sounds like a tremendous waste to me.

Yeah, it’s proposed as a last-mile solution, and then in the next breath they talk about it as a solution for a transit line. Makes no sense.

In this country, and with our current not-so-friendly-towards-transit government, there will be more emphasis on AVs as transit line replacements. Meanwhile in other countries where their governments are more friendly towards transit (basically any European country) the emphasis will likely be on AVs being a last mile solution to/from a transit stop.

Midtown LRT could be built by 2030. Hell, it could've been built in 1998 when freight trains were rerouted out of that corridor. But that requires competent transit planners who aren't just focusing on trying to bring high quality transit to transit-hostile areas and politicians who don't automatically say "but what about autonomous cars?".

Would that resolution from 1999 prevent operations of these small buses too? I think that running them would take away the usage from Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Midtown Rail should be a priority once SWLRT is built!

The MGC is not a government entity, we don't set policy. We're basically a neighborhood organization. Hennepin county could tear out the bikeway tomorrow and put in a highway, we can't stop them.

And it's not clear exactly what the county is "testing" here with this pilot. Hopefully we'll know more when we meet with the county guy in the article later this week.

Would that resolution from 1999 prevent operations of these small buses too? I think that running them would take away the usage from Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Midtown Rail should be a priority once SWLRT is built!

The MGC is not a government entity, we don't set policy. We're basically a neighborhood organization. Hennepin county could tear out the bikeway tomorrow and put in a highway, we can't stop them.

And it's not clear exactly what the county is "testing" here with this pilot. Hopefully we'll know more when we meet with the county guy in the article later this week.

The MGC is not a government entity, we don't set policy. We're basically a neighborhood organization. Hennepin county could tear out the bikeway tomorrow and put in a highway, we can't stop them.

And it's not clear exactly what the county is "testing" here with this pilot. Hopefully we'll know more when we meet with the county guy in the article later this week.

Could you ask why this test is being done on our premier bike/ped facility, either closing it at its busiest stretch or taking space and possibly safety away from bikes and peds, when it could be just as easily be done on any number of our very great quantity of streets? Basically, why are they testing a car on a bike/ped path?

And if they feel they must test it on a bike path, because they can't possibly inconvenience cars (I mean, it's Hennepin County), why not one of the dual-path sections of the Cedar Lake or Kenilworth Trails? Then they could at least just closed one path and have two-way traffic on the other.

I can see that they would want to connect two fairly close business nodes, so people would have a reason to try it (rather than just being out in the middle of nowhere where people would likely drive there to test it out).

In that case, why not use 31st street for the demo, between Hennepin & Lyndale?